Virgin Media Box: Class Act

In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
In article , lid says...


My understanding certainly was that there was fibre to the cabinet, and
coax and/or UTP from there to the premises, depending.

No - see my reply to Woody's post.

Cambridge cable presentation (now Virgin via NTL) IIRC is /was pure
coax. With phones demuxed of that somehow. I think.


No. The fact that both services are fed from a single cabinet may give
that illusion but that is all it is: an illusion.

If you could see inside a cabinet before subscriber cables were added it
would be easy to see that the telephony distribution is physically and
electrically separate. Once the cabinet fills up, it is rather difficult!

at my daughter's house there is only 1 cable incoming which is then split
to provide telephone & television. So, they can't all be like that.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

charles wrote:
In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
In article , lid says...

My understanding certainly was that there was fibre to the cabinet, and
coax and/or UTP from there to the premises, depending.

No - see my reply to Woody's post.

Cambridge cable presentation (now Virgin via NTL) IIRC is /was pure
coax. With phones demuxed of that somehow. I think.


No. The fact that both services are fed from a single cabinet may give
that illusion but that is all it is: an illusion.

If you could see inside a cabinet before subscriber cables were added it
would be easy to see that the telephony distribution is physically and
electrically separate. Once the cabinet fills up, it is rather difficult!

at my daughter's house there is only 1 cable incoming which is then split
to provide telephone & television. So, they can't all be like that.

that is how I remember it from my friend's Cambridge Cable. One coax, a
magic box, then cable modem on one socket and a standard BT style phone
on another.

I should cross post this to cam.misc as they are all on it over there.

On 08/02/2011 19:44, Mark Carver wrote:

Thanks for your concern chaps, the enhancements from Rick and Peter are
very good, but just as you can't beat having more signal in the first
place, rather than trying to boost it, I will take a new shot tomorrow
morning, with the fine example of telecommunication engineering
excellence, glowing in early morning Hampshire sunlight.

....well, morning drizzle, but here it is:-

http://www.markyboy.net/vmbox3.jpg (1 Meg)


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

http://www.paras.org.uk/

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:46:35 -0000, Malcolm Gray
wrote:


at my daughter's house there is only 1 cable incoming which is then
split
to provide telephone & television. So, they can't all be like that.

that is how I remember it from my friend's Cambridge Cable. One coax, a
magic box, then cable modem on one socket and a standard BT style phone
on another.

I should cross post this to cam.misc as they are all on it over there.

My memory is of a figure of eight cable that was something like coax and
cat 5.

It is for Virgin Media (ex-NTL). Or at least in Bar Hill it is. But we
were never Cambridge Cable, which might be different.

--
Alan

In article ,
says...

In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
In article , lid says...


My understanding certainly was that there was fibre to the cabinet, and
coax and/or UTP from there to the premises, depending.

No - see my reply to Woody's post.

Cambridge cable presentation (now Virgin via NTL) IIRC is /was pure
coax. With phones demuxed of that somehow. I think.


No. The fact that both services are fed from a single cabinet may give
that illusion but that is all it is: an illusion.

If you could see inside a cabinet before subscriber cables were added it
would be easy to see that the telephony distribution is physically and
electrically separate. Once the cabinet fills up, it is rather difficult!

at my daughter's house there is only 1 cable incoming which is then split
to provide telephone & television. So, they can't all be like that.

The operative word there is SPLIT - as in 'splits into TWO separate cables ...'

Funny, that - it does exactly the same thing at the other end!

In fact, you could split them all the way along, but that would rather defeat the object!

You seem to be implying that it is like connecting a telephone to one pair of a 200 pair
cable and only expecting to see one pair at the far end with all 200 telephone circuits
magically multiplexed inside the cable, somehow ...

--

Terry

Erm, I am confused. Maybe not in your area but here VM (formerly
NTL, formerly Bell Cablemedia (I think)) have fibre feed to the
street cab and a paralleled pair co-ax/four-pair to the house.
The co-ax carries TV and broadband, the pair carries telephone.


My understanding certainly was that there was fibre to the cabinet, and
coax and/or UTP from there to the premises, depending.

Cambridge cable presentation (now Virgin via NTL) IIRC is /was pure
coax. With phones demuxed of that somehow. I think.

Fibre to the distribution cab than demux to subscriber cabs and those
are copper and co-ax around up to 1 km or so max from what I remember of
it..



Even BT do exactly that now - or they did as of this morning when
an Openreach man fitted a new line at a radio site for me. BTO
man advised that as there was 40Mb to the cab and the cable was
only about 300m we should possibly get as much as 20Mb if we
wanted it.


40Mbps to the cab is crap. Surely the fibre handles more?



--
Tony Sayer

In article , Terry
Casey wrote:

[Snip]

The operative word there is SPLIT - as in 'splits into TWO separate
cables ...'


The box seems very big just to do this.

Funny, that - it does exactly the same thing at the other end!

In fact, you could split them all the way along, but that would rather
defeat the object!

You seem to be implying that it is like connecting a telephone to one
pair of a 200 pair cable and only expecting to see one pair at the far
end with all 200 telephone circuits magically multiplexed inside the
cable, somehow ...

multiplexing is magic, isn't it?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In message ,
Terry Casey writes
In article ,

says...

In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
In article , lid says...


My understanding certainly was that there was fibre to the cabinet, and
coax and/or UTP from there to the premises, depending.

No - see my reply to Woody's post.

Cambridge cable presentation (now Virgin via NTL) IIRC is /was pure
coax. With phones demuxed of that somehow. I think.


No. The fact that both services are fed from a single cabinet may give
that illusion but that is all it is: an illusion.

If you could see inside a cabinet before subscriber cables were added it
would be easy to see that the telephony distribution is physically and
electrically separate. Once the cabinet fills up, it is rather difficult!

at my daughter's house there is only 1 cable incoming which is then split
to provide telephone & television. So, they can't all be like that.

The operative word there is SPLIT - as in 'splits into TWO separate cables ...'

Funny, that - it does exactly the same thing at the other end!

In fact, you could split them all the way along, but that would rather
defeat the object!

You seem to be implying that it is like connecting a telephone to one
pair of a 200 pair
cable and only expecting to see one pair at the far end with all 200
telephone circuits
magically multiplexed inside the cable, somehow ...

Although, for decades, there have been experimental two-way phone (and
video-phone) systems piggybacked onto existing two-way CATV systems, as
far as I know, none is in operation in the UK. I'm pretty sure that
RF-based TV/internet and the baseband telephone/internet are still
(electrically) completely separate services.
--
Ian

In message , tony sayer
writes



Fibre to the distribution cab than demux to subscriber cabs and those
are copper and co-ax around up to 1 km or so max from what I remember of
it..

When you think of it, there's not much copper actually available at (or
from) a cabinet. Most of the cables are in ducts in ground, and can't
readily be pulled out.

Even the equipment is of minimal value. Though it might cost thousands
to replace, there can be few buyers for stolen equipment (even in
perfect working order). I suppose that batteries might be worth
something as scrap, but the value of the rest of the stuff will be next
to nothing.
--
Ian

In article . org
, Malcolm Gray scribeth thus

at my daughter's house there is only 1 cable incoming which is then split
to provide telephone & television. So, they can't all be like that.

that is how I remember it from my friend's Cambridge Cable. One coax, a
magic box, then cable modem on one socket and a standard BT style phone
on another.

I should cross post this to cam.misc as they are all on it over there.

My memory is of a figure of eight cable that was something like coax and
cat 5.

Co-ax, RG11 IIRC and a two pair copper phone cable often referred to in
the trade as "Sidecar cable"
--
Tony Sayer